I've been witnessing the problem for a non-US telco, as we helped them with their strategic planning efforts. What is needed is a new last mile business model, separate from services (data, internet, etc.). Last miles investments are long term, and now they are coupled to services in many countries. When regulations force you to share the last mile, you have the US situation (A bit better than unregulated).
Cringley argues in favour of citicen owned last miles. That's one way. What we need to develop is a business model the last mile. If last mile is USD 30 a month, and service USD 10, and the service provider depends on a carrier and a cable company...then you are screwed. Maybe a franchise like (replicable, with facilities, methodologies, training) "last-mile" business can be set-up so that no single company needs billions of dolars of investments to reach a home or office.
That's what I've been thinking...a competitive (shared) last mile business model based on simple franchises, leveraged by equipment manufacturers, service providers and banks.
You are probably a developer/sysadmin...this is for a company operating in 7 countries with 25,000 notebooks/desktops for specific purposes, like POS, specific apps, etc.).
Companies do not want every employee being a vulnerability due to malware, virus, etc. can cause chaos. This is not for you.
It's designed to "naturally" evolve to what we are. God is powerful enough to create a universe in which evolution can happen...as designed. I don't have a problem with that.
We'll need to figure most ALL the steps (especially the difficult, rare ones), and the probability that everything happened by change...and then believing things just happen (God by change) or believing that there's some highly improbable that happened (God, not chance) will still depend on a matter of chance. We'll never be able to conclude "this side was right".
I tend to believe in that there's something strange, and have no problem believing there's something else than 100% chance evolution.
Nobody is contradicting the other size really. There are still plenty of people that believe in destiny, although they don't believe in any kind of god. That's also strange. Intelligent design in some ways is the same, believe what you want:-)
As long as the religious don't try to impose a way specific of living and moral on other (religious or not) I think things will be fine.
We should have waited a few more millions years, and computers could have created themselves. What I find interesting is that everything creates itself in biology. There manufacturing process is evolved, not a sum of parts. And at every moment the growing creature must do increadible things untill everithing is up and working as intended. I don't care about evolution or inteligent design...but from observation of species, nature looks more like an art contest than pure crude chance.
> Limit Innovation. A society full of undeserving rich kids travelling > around collecting art work for their private collections does > not induce innovation.
I've thought about this for some time. The thing is that this guys are in effect moving their bying power to artists (or art traders). They are not changing the economy much. If i inherited 100,000,000,000,000,000 today and used the amount to buy a Monet, I am not enforcing my rights as a rich guy, but the guy I buy such Monet from. If he buys 100,000,000,000 tons of rice and dumps it on a river, we are out of luck, if they use it to better educate the masses, that's a good thing.
Anthing you do with money only has an effect when you touch a labour or capitla intensive market. It's like the guys buying art let the next in the chanin decide if being rich is bad or good. They are just trading purchasing power for pictures, songs or whatever.
Because the goverment decides what your property is, and the people of your generation decide what your property is? Why should the current goverment decide what YOUR or HIS kids property should be? Shouldn't people elected by your kids elect that? Who do you think you are? What if people from 1500 decided what your property showld be now? Well, they decided it should be NOTHING, and that everything should be the King's Property...Of course we didn't obbey! And I am happy!
The world is not ours to appropiate. We can try, and even enforce such rights for some time...but it's not really our decision. Everything in your mind depends on either your education, beliefs or even convenience. It's really funny, although I don't complain much, I am in the "lucky side"...(for the moment being)...and I am sure you are also happy with it. Convenience, a pretty lame belief...
The US plans to offer other contries not goods (manufacturing is so "third world), and not services (there are people intensive, and we can't compete against low salaries) but just "rights" (or intelectual property. They plan to compete against other nations by enforcing such rights. If you don't pay for "their inventions - ehem processes" (everything goes!), you can't sell them stuff. They expect to enforce their rights in other coutries too. "We are the only ones allowed to do this this way period"...
The bad thing is corporations are not patriotic, and wealth is not as well. Militar superiority is the best way to enforce your rights, and to generate some sense of fidelity in wealthy citizens. I don't think it will work. One day they will be obsolete by reality.
> Consider that the premise of TFA is that fun is really just a way to learn things
This "could" be true, but it not always is
> but steal your special moves so you couldn't use them any more AND they could block off access to...
He was not implying Street Fighter is more real that WoW is, but in the sense that the rules are fixed and your skills make you win, not the "power" skills recorded in a database. The skills are fixed, YOU either have them or do not. The diffrence is skills YOU own, vs. are recorded in some database. A great player of WoW will most certainly lose a battle against an average player with a well developed character. So in WoW a company "owns the skills", for as long as you keep playing. You are someone there for as a long as they keep on receiving money. You are a slave.
> How is this not like real life? One guy can learn some impressive martial arts skills. > However, that person will always fall to to the one with superior time, technology, or numbers.
So? He has his skill, if they are not the correct skills for world domination, who cares, that's not the point argued. Do you think that playing WoW makes you more apt for enjoying life, or whatever is your goal in life?
> It is also for this reason that warfare has become a matter of who can build > the most planes and bombs. Certainly, WWI era fighting aces may have been more > skilled, but that ace will always lose to a guided missle.
Nobody argued this. But you are contradicting yourself in the next sentense. A country like the US can dominate coutries like India easily, doesn't matter what country is more populated or the size or their army.
> Perserverence in the real world is superior to technical skill
It is important, but does not sufficient at all...look at all the very poor hard working people all over the world.
> Large groups can easily overpower small groups or individuals. > This is the premise of political philosophy since the time of Aristotle.
What?! You said technology, numers...(time?) was more important than Kung Fu... small groups can and usually do overpower large groups. It's been like that like forever....
> Ruling powers often arbitrarily enforce illy defined laws.
A minority rulling all others now...
> My conclusion is that the author of TFA has a problem with the way the world > actually is. While I've never played WoW, from the description it sounds to > me as if WoW teaches truths far more universal than Street Fighter and it's ilk.
Why? From the description, I don't think so...
>The world of Street Fighter is the world of the action movie where The Hero > can overcome All Adversity and Live Happily Ever After. Games that teach > that sentiment seems to me to be far more dangerous to their players than WoW.
If you'd paid attention, the Hero made a life commitment to kill the king, and paid a high price. And at the end, he understood that improving the world we live in requires some bad things to happen, things that are unfair to a minority. So not only he did not overcome All Adversity, much worst, he died without changing anything at all. The king had other skills, the ability to command and to convince people that he's doing the best that can be done (amongh other virtues of course).
So yes, Street fighter skills to not translate to real world skills, but the skills remain with you as a person, not you as a database entry. Maybe both games can teach you something. One things is the stuff you own (property, land, money, degrees, etc) that remain in a database vs actual skills (talking, communicating, leadership, paiting, martial arts, etc). WoW allows people to do with skills what we can do in reallfe for things like wealth, titles, etc.). But titles are not the skills. In WoW the character is not YOU, nor your actual skills reflect your character skills. In Street Figher you own the skills (but no titles, degrees or wealth is involved).
Oh, and both games are probably a waste of time:-)
That's why I stopped playing any kind of artificial simulating games. Or mostly any games at all (except things like Chess, Go and some other abstract games). I really liked playing games (all of them, Adventure, FPSs, Sports, Combat Simulators, RPGs, etc), but at some point I found out that I could't apply most of what was learned (although something must have permeated) to real life, and that I like real life more...I sometimes play some RPGs when not very happy with life in general, but it lasts like 2 or 3 days a year (mostly games like Monkey Iland, or Zelda kind of games)...
It's kind of obvious, but one day I literally assumed a "let's play in real life" position, and started dating a lot (maybe too much), traveling a lot (I am living in Mexico for the moment:-), playing sports (squash), martial arts, learning...yes...social skills, and understanding people (insted of judging, to name some examples.
It's been very rewarding...I don't miss any computer game at all. After all, it's the riches games of all...and I want master it before it's too late:-)
Haven't read the article, but I am pretty shure it's not property rights, but distribution of property. That stresses the "owning" part of property. In many poor countries, few people own most of the land and companies, and that does not help. Fair distribution of property, and good laws (making clear who owns what, making it so things can be sold without risks to the buyer, or mortages (is that the word?) has a potential great impact in many poor countries.
I read in Singapur some decades ago they made a program so that all families could own a house, and that that single initiative was crucial to what the country is now (besides female going to universities, standarizing on english, and a few other measures).
"If you don't own anything, you have nothing to lose, and nothing to build upon"...
I have a gold course in from of me, a yacuzzi, a very cute piano and everything i need. It's not someone paying for another, is realizing that fixed pricing is not always right, especially if it doesn't affect companies profits. Government giving away the meds is ok, but it's be better to buy the patents, not the medicine.
In drugs there are no competitors to a patented drug, it's a monopoly by law. So no, it's not altruism vs capitalism as you put it. Their is a price that maximizes revenue, that may not be ideal.
I don't have the solution, but a good way would be to change depending on income: if you are rich, you pay much more. If you are poor, you pay a bit more than the cost (or more if manuf. cost is very low). The problem to solve is how to limit frauds to minimun...
Now, if you believe that leting poor people (relative term, you and I may be TOO POOR for this cure should you ever get HIVS) die, because rich people will not like paying more (absolute)... well, I just don't agree. The end result is even better for labs, because they get to harvest the entire demand curve (ie: more profits). I don't think it is legal in general, though different countries have different price policies depending on "average" income....sometimes...
Software companies are doing something similar, limit some very basic stuff, and make SOHO versions of everything, but make sure large companies still pay huge amounts of money. It's not easy, but works for them (for example, making changes depend on number of processors, number of users, trasactions, intent - students vs commercial -, bundling with appliances of different capacities, etc, etc, etc.
There are other solutions, like making it so that "earnings" or profits of a single year (say year 2), indicate a "ramsom price" (for example 5x or 10x that earnings) where if anyone can raise that much money, could clear the patent (public domain). That may cap the earnings or maybe increase the earnings. The ramsom price could be investigated.
I think finding "people" intesting is the key to socialing. If you find "people in general"...boring, then you will never succeed at social skills. I've been a little bit apathic in certain periods of my life, but at present, I find lots of people interesting. I tend to preffer talking to smart people, but smart has changed and does not only mean "intelligent" in the IQ way. I mean emotionally smart, artistically smart, people that can immitate other people, people that always see the good side of things (or the bad), sensually smart (an i mean females in my case), people that know how to tell stories that make you laught, people that can higly motivate you without being smart themselves. It's fun, may change the way you see certain things, and will help you understand that being right is not always even fun...I even don't find working with much slower people that frustrating, it's a god damn challenge, but also teaches.
Most everything in written form is biased. As soon as someone is involved, the bias exists. Even the most factual reports are biased...which facts did you forget? How is the tone of the article. Obviously, hard sciences can be more factual, but if you are in social science (like history)...trying to avoid bias is worst than having credible different versions or interpretations that a single "concensus"...
Maybe artciles could come in versions, especially when facts are disputed, or several "biased" sources want to tell a different story. That would be good enough I believe. Especially for political or controversial facts. Wikipedia has no specific bias, so they could easily accommodate different versions of "facts"...
Just like in trials, you would be allowed to present your side of the story, but not to silence another version,... unless (maybe) you can factually prove, and there are no opinions involved (just facts). This last I would guess would be problematic...more than one point of view would be best.
Telcos are manufacturers clients...they usually buy the stuff...on the other hand, equipment manufacturers have seen what happens when one company takes control of standards, protocols and core applications or systems. And Cisco missing, for a good reason...:-P
What if you meat with very different people. Nerds, sarcastic economists, techies, writers, lawers and so on. I am sure someone will find a joke for this one, but I feel I fall in that place anyway. Everything influences you In different way. I really enjoy working with slower people, as much as working with very brilliant people. In fact, different people can show you different angles o ways to process the information. It's rich. Of course, you end stopping judgment more than often, or understanding why people feel or think certain way.:-)
Gentoo automates a lot of the difficulty of installing fonts, and you can start from the binnary releases, speeding up things. But yes, for an out-of-the-box solution try Ubuntu for example. You don't have to do anything.
The stuff is patented, so there is no market price, theres only a monopoly price. It also doesnt matter if the drug had cost $5 to developt, or 50,000 millon dollars, laboratories can charge whatever they want. Maybe we need to start regulating these monopolies, capping drug developers margins so that they will only invest in what makes economical sense. The way it is now, they investigate a lot, and with a champion drug they can recoup any cost, for decades...
Did you read the interview? It's not like that. The idea is that an author may license some GPL code that has code to allow the source dto be downloaded, and the license may say you have to keep that feature. You can safely avoid software that has no such nonse...
First, it is an idea R.S. gave, second point, i think itnot bad per se if some developer wants his code open even if you do not redistribute: in the end, it he chooses users must disclose all changes just by using the code in a away an end user faces it.
Anyway it's ridiculous and i would call that whatever by GPL in spirit. That should go on another license not a GPL one IMHO.
Reproduction...what they need is the data to be queriable, not "reproduced". They don't need "another copy", they need an indexable format. They can destroy the original copy and still keep a digital one. the question would be, are you allowed to turn digital a printed book? if you can't then what are they selling selling, papaer? or the letter in it in the intentended order?
They "may" end up blocking google...bad for us, bad for them. And...why can I listen to my music in my iPod?
mp3.com's A was not found to be illegal, and google's A, too add to that, is different from mp3.com's A. mp3.com's A is clear, as anyone can rip a CD legally, like you do with iTunes or any other legal software.
And google's A, scanning the text of a book for internal use is not illegal either. And it's not illegal to be able to tell someone else, if some phrase is in certain book.
It's common sense. mp3.com problem was A+B+C+D+E, not A, o D+E. They didn't have rights to distribute music, they couldn't provide a "shared storage" service either.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been witnessing the problem for a non-US telco, as we helped them with their strategic planning efforts. What is needed is a new last mile business model, separate from services (data, internet, etc.). Last miles investments are long term, and now they are coupled to services in many countries. When regulations force you to share the last mile, you have the US situation (A bit better than unregulated).
Cringley argues in favour of citicen owned last miles. That's one way. What we need to develop is a business model the last mile. If last mile is USD 30 a month, and service USD 10, and the service provider depends on a carrier and a cable company...then you are screwed. Maybe a franchise like (replicable, with facilities, methodologies, training) "last-mile" business can be set-up so that no single company needs billions of dolars of investments to reach a home or office.
That's what I've been thinking...a competitive (shared) last mile business model based on simple franchises, leveraged by equipment manufacturers, service providers and banks.
You are probably a developer/sysadmin...this is for a company operating in 7 countries with 25,000 notebooks/desktops for specific purposes, like POS, specific apps, etc.).
Companies do not want every employee being a vulnerability due to malware, virus, etc. can cause chaos. This is not for you.
It's designed to "naturally" evolve to what we are. God is powerful enough to create a universe in which evolution can happen...as designed. I don't have a problem with that.
:-)
We'll need to figure most ALL the steps (especially the difficult, rare ones), and the probability that everything happened by change...and then believing things just happen (God by change) or believing that there's some highly improbable that happened (God, not chance) will still depend on a matter of chance. We'll never be able to conclude "this side was right".
I tend to believe in that there's something strange, and have no problem believing there's something else than 100% chance evolution.
Nobody is contradicting the other size really. There are still plenty of people that believe in destiny, although they don't believe in any kind of god. That's also strange. Intelligent design in some ways is the same, believe what you want
As long as the religious don't try to impose a way specific of living and moral on other (religious or not) I think things will be fine.
We should have waited a few more millions years, and computers could have created themselves. What I find interesting is that everything creates itself in biology. There manufacturing process is evolved, not a sum of parts. And at every moment the growing creature must do increadible things untill everithing is up and working as intended. I don't care about evolution or inteligent design...but from observation of species, nature looks more like an art contest than pure crude chance.
Unless he's chassing....YOU!
> Limit Innovation. A society full of undeserving rich kids travelling
> around collecting art work for their private collections does
> not induce innovation.
I've thought about this for some time. The thing is that this guys are in effect moving their bying power to artists (or art traders). They are not changing the economy much. If i inherited 100,000,000,000,000,000 today and used the amount to buy a Monet, I am not enforcing my rights as a rich guy, but the guy I buy such Monet from. If he buys 100,000,000,000 tons of rice and dumps it on a river, we are out of luck, if they use it to better educate the masses, that's a good thing.
Anthing you do with money only has an effect when you touch a labour or capitla intensive market. It's like the guys buying art let the next in the chanin decide if being rich is bad or good. They are just trading purchasing power for pictures, songs or whatever.
Because the goverment decides what your property is, and the people of your generation decide what your property is? Why should the current goverment decide what YOUR or HIS kids property should be? Shouldn't people elected by your kids elect that? Who do you think you are? What if people from 1500 decided what your property showld be now? Well, they decided it should be NOTHING, and that everything should be the King's Property...Of course we didn't obbey! And I am happy!
...(for the moment being)...and I am sure you are also happy with it. Convenience, a pretty lame belief...
The world is not ours to appropiate. We can try, and even enforce such rights for some time...but it's not really our decision. Everything in your mind depends on either your education, beliefs or even convenience. It's really funny, although I don't complain much, I am in the "lucky side"
The US plans to offer other contries not goods (manufacturing is so "third world), and not services (there are people intensive, and we can't compete against low salaries) but just "rights" (or intelectual property. They plan to compete against other nations by enforcing such rights. If you don't pay for "their inventions - ehem processes" (everything goes!), you can't sell them stuff. They expect to enforce their rights in other coutries too. "We are the only ones allowed to do this this way period" ...
The bad thing is corporations are not patriotic, and wealth is not as well. Militar superiority is the best way to enforce your rights, and to generate some sense of fidelity in wealthy citizens. I don't think it will work. One day they will be obsolete by reality.
> Consider that the premise of TFA is that fun is really just a way to learn things
...
... small groups can and usually do overpower large groups. It's been like that like forever....
:-)
This "could" be true, but it not always is
> but steal your special moves so you couldn't use them any more AND they could block off access to
He was not implying Street Fighter is more real that WoW is, but in the sense that the rules are fixed and your skills make you win, not the "power" skills recorded in a database. The skills are fixed, YOU either have them or do not. The diffrence is skills YOU own, vs. are recorded in some database. A great player of WoW will most certainly lose a battle against an average player with a well developed character. So in WoW a company "owns the skills", for as long as you keep playing. You are someone there for as a long as they keep on receiving money. You are a slave.
> How is this not like real life? One guy can learn some impressive martial arts skills.
> However, that person will always fall to to the one with superior time, technology, or numbers.
So? He has his skill, if they are not the correct skills for world domination, who cares, that's not the point argued. Do you think that playing WoW makes you more apt for enjoying life, or whatever is your goal in life?
> It is also for this reason that warfare has become a matter of who can build
> the most planes and bombs. Certainly, WWI era fighting aces may have been more
> skilled, but that ace will always lose to a guided missle.
Nobody argued this. But you are contradicting yourself in the next sentense. A country like the US can
dominate coutries like India easily, doesn't matter what country is more populated or the size or their army.
> Perserverence in the real world is superior to technical skill
It is important, but does not sufficient at all...look at all the very poor hard working people all over the world.
> Large groups can easily overpower small groups or individuals.
> This is the premise of political philosophy since the time of Aristotle.
What?! You said technology, numers...(time?) was more important than Kung Fu
> Ruling powers often arbitrarily enforce illy defined laws.
A minority rulling all others now...
> My conclusion is that the author of TFA has a problem with the way the world
> actually is. While I've never played WoW, from the description it sounds to
> me as if WoW teaches truths far more universal than Street Fighter and it's ilk.
Why? From the description, I don't think so...
>The world of Street Fighter is the world of the action movie where The Hero
> can overcome All Adversity and Live Happily Ever After. Games that teach
> that sentiment seems to me to be far more dangerous to their players than WoW.
If you'd paid attention, the Hero made
a life commitment to kill the king, and paid a high price. And at the end, he
understood that improving the world we live in requires some bad things to happen,
things that are unfair to a minority. So not only he did not overcome All Adversity,
much worst, he died without changing anything at all. The king had other skills,
the ability to command and to convince people that he's doing the best that can
be done (amongh other virtues of course).
So yes, Street fighter skills to not translate to real world skills, but the skills
remain with you as a person, not you as a database entry. Maybe both games can teach
you something. One things is the stuff you own (property, land, money, degrees, etc) that
remain in a database vs actual skills (talking, communicating, leadership,
paiting, martial arts, etc). WoW allows people to do with skills what we can do in reallfe
for things like wealth, titles, etc.). But titles are not the skills. In WoW the character
is not YOU, nor your actual skills reflect your character skills. In Street Figher you
own the skills (but no titles, degrees or wealth is involved).
Oh, and both games are probably a waste of time
That's why I stopped playing any kind of artificial simulating games. Or mostly any games at all (except things like Chess, Go and some other abstract games). I really liked playing games (all of them, Adventure, FPSs, Sports, Combat Simulators, RPGs, etc), but at some point I found out that I could't apply most of what was learned (although something must have permeated) to real life, and that I like real life more...I sometimes play some RPGs when not very happy with life in general, but it lasts like 2 or 3 days a year (mostly games like Monkey Iland, or Zelda kind of games) ...
:-), playing sports (squash), martial arts, learning...yes...social skills, and understanding people (insted of judging, to name some examples.
:-)
It's kind of obvious, but one day I literally assumed a "let's play in real life" position, and started dating a lot (maybe too much), traveling a lot (I am living in Mexico for the moment
It's been very rewarding...I don't miss any computer game at all. After all, it's the riches games of all...and I want master it before it's too late
Haven't read the article, but I am pretty shure it's not property rights, but distribution of property. That stresses the "owning" part of property. In many poor countries, few people own most of the land and companies, and that does not help. Fair distribution of property, and good laws (making clear who owns what, making it so things can be sold without risks to the buyer, or mortages (is that the word?) has a potential great impact in many poor countries.
...
I read in Singapur some decades ago they made a program so that all families could own a house, and that that single initiative was crucial to what the country is now (besides female going to universities, standarizing on english, and a few other measures).
"If you don't own anything, you have nothing to lose, and nothing to build upon"
I have a gold course in from of me, a yacuzzi, a very cute piano and everything i need. It's not someone paying for another, is realizing that fixed pricing is not always right, especially if it doesn't affect companies profits. Government giving away the meds is ok, but it's be better to buy the patents, not the medicine.
In drugs there are no competitors to a patented drug, it's a monopoly by law. So no, it's not altruism vs capitalism as you put it. Their is a price that maximizes revenue, that may not be ideal.
...
... well, I just don't agree. The end result is even better for labs, because they get to harvest the entire demand curve (ie: more profits). I don't think it is legal in general, though different countries have different price policies depending on "average" income....sometimes...
I don't have the solution, but a good way would be to change depending on income: if you are rich, you pay much more. If you are poor, you pay a bit more than the cost (or more if manuf. cost is very low). The problem to solve is how to limit frauds to minimun
Now, if you believe that leting poor people (relative term, you and I may be TOO POOR for this cure should you ever get HIVS) die, because rich people will not like paying more (absolute)
Software companies are doing something similar, limit some very basic stuff, and make SOHO versions of everything, but make sure large companies still pay huge amounts of money. It's not easy, but works for them (for example, making changes depend on number of processors, number of users, trasactions, intent - students vs commercial -, bundling with appliances of different capacities, etc, etc, etc.
There are other solutions, like making it so that "earnings" or profits of a single year (say year 2), indicate a "ramsom price" (for example 5x or 10x that earnings) where if anyone can raise that much money, could clear the patent (public domain). That may cap the earnings or maybe increase the earnings. The ramsom price could be investigated.
I think finding "people" intesting is the key to socialing. If you find "people in general"...boring, then you will never succeed at social skills. I've been a little bit apathic in certain periods of my life, but at present, I find lots of people interesting. I tend to preffer talking to smart people, but smart has changed and does not only mean "intelligent" in the IQ way. I mean emotionally smart, artistically smart, people that can immitate other people, people that always see the good side of things (or the bad), sensually smart (an i mean females in my case), people that know how to tell stories that make you laught, people that can higly motivate you without being smart themselves. It's fun, may change the way you see certain things, and will help you understand that being right is not always even fun...I even don't find working with much slower people that frustrating, it's a god damn challenge, but also teaches.
Most everything in written form is biased. As soon as someone is involved, the bias exists. Even the most factual reports are biased...which facts did you forget? How is the tone of the article. Obviously, hard sciences can be more factual, but if you are in social science (like history)...trying to avoid bias is worst than having credible different versions or interpretations that a single "concensus" ...
Maybe artciles could come in versions, especially when facts are disputed, or several "biased" sources want to tell a different story. That would be good enough I believe. Especially for political or controversial facts. Wikipedia has no specific bias, so they could easily accommodate different versions of "facts"...
... unless (maybe) you can factually prove, and there are no opinions involved (just facts). This last I would guess would be problematic...more than one point of view would be best.
Just like in trials, you would be allowed to present your side of the story, but not to silence another version,
Great examples!
WordStar -> Wordperfect -> MS Office
EasyCalc -> Lotus123 -> MS Office
PCM -> DRDOS -> MS-DOS -> Windows
Mosaic -> Netscape -> MSIE
Uhg...don't even try it...
Telcos are manufacturers clients...they usually buy the stuff...on the other hand, equipment manufacturers have seen what happens when one company takes control of standards, protocols and core applications or systems. And Cisco missing, for a good reason... :-P
What if you meat with very different people. Nerds, sarcastic economists, techies, writers, lawers and so on. I am sure someone will find a joke for this one, but I feel I fall in that place anyway. Everything influences you In different way. I really enjoy working with slower people, as much as working with very brilliant people. In fact, different people can show you different angles o ways to process the information. It's rich. Of course, you end stopping judgment more than often, or understanding why people feel or think certain way. :-)
Regards,
Gentoo automates a lot of the difficulty of installing fonts, and you can start from the binnary releases, speeding up things. But yes, for an out-of-the-box solution try Ubuntu for example. You don't have to do anything.
The stuff is patented, so there is no market price, theres only a monopoly price. It also doesnt matter if the drug had cost $5 to developt, or 50,000 millon dollars, laboratories can charge whatever they want. Maybe we need to start regulating these monopolies, capping drug developers margins so that they will only invest in what makes economical sense. The way it is now, they investigate a lot, and with a champion drug they can recoup any cost, for decades...
Did you read the interview? It's not like that. The idea is that an author may license some GPL code that has code to allow the source dto be downloaded, and the license may say you have to keep that feature. You can safely avoid software that has no such nonse...
First, it is an idea R.S. gave, second point, i think itnot bad per se if some developer wants his code open even if you do not redistribute: in the end, it he chooses users must disclose all changes just by using the code in a away an end user faces it.
Anyway it's ridiculous and i would call that whatever by GPL in spirit. That should go on another license not a GPL one IMHO.
Look up "IP Communications" from Cisco or Avaya...they offer that exactly...
Reproduction...what they need is the data to be queriable, not "reproduced". They don't need "another copy", they need an indexable format. They can destroy the original copy and still keep a digital one. the question would be, are you allowed to turn digital a printed book? if you can't then what are they selling selling, papaer? or the letter in it in the intentended order?
They "may" end up blocking google...bad for us, bad for them. And...why can I listen to my music in my iPod?
I hope Google wins this one...
No, you don't yet it.
mp3.com's A was not found to be illegal, and google's A, too add to that, is different from mp3.com's A. mp3.com's A is clear, as anyone can rip a CD legally, like you do with iTunes or any other legal software.
And google's A, scanning the text of a book for internal use is not illegal either. And it's not illegal to be able to tell someone else, if some phrase is in certain book.
It's common sense. mp3.com problem was A+B+C+D+E, not A, o D+E. They didn't have rights to distribute music, they couldn't provide a "shared storage" service either.